Wal-Mart Strikes Again
(This article is re-posted from CounterPunch and further illustrates the point we made about Wal-Mart policies in light of their PR campaign to win public opinion through its so-called anti-hunger project.)
It didn’t get much media attention, but on December 8, Wal-Mart announced that beginning January 1, 2011, it would discontinue its $1 dollar per hour bonus pay for Sunday work. Maybe the media figured there had already been enough recession-angle stories, and that compared to lay-offs, home foreclosures, and double-digit unemployment, the loss of a buck an hour wasn’t worth reporting.
But considered from a different angle, Wal-Mart’s announcement is quite sobering. Overturning the long-standing policy of paying people premium-time (even as little as $1 per hour more) for Sunday work is definitely a step backwards. After all, premium pay for Sunday work has been an American institution of sorts for more than 100 years.
Sunday was always special. It was the Sabbath, the day people attended church, the traditional day of rest in America (even many 19th century laborers, wretched as they were, worked only half a day on Sundays). For that reason, Sunday was chosen as the day on which certain holidays—Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Easter—were observed.
Sunday was also recognized as America’s unofficial family day, a day when the kids were out of school, a day when relatives got together; and, until well after World War II, it was a day on which most retail businesses in America were shuttered. Thus to work on a Sunday was to serve above and beyond the call of duty, hence the premium pay.
So why is the most successful merchandiser in the history of the world (and the largest private employer in the United States, Canada and Mexico) squeezing its future full-time workers out of $8 pay on Sundays? Surely, it’s not a question of being unable to afford it, because Wal-Mart is rolling in dough. Actually, the answer is fairly obvious: They did it because they could.
With no labor union or government agency to stop them, with the country too distracted by its own economic worries and woes to empathize with retail clerks, and with the job market in the sorry shape it’s in, what are these Wal-Mart folks supposed to do—quit their jobs and look for work elsewhere? Taking all of this into account, Wal-Mart saw the move as eminently doable….and did it.
What makes this phenomenon—i.e., management’s boot placed firmly on labor’s neck—so spooky is that no one knows where it will ultimately lead. Many fear that the continued attack on the American worker will result in the dissolution of the middle-class and turn the U.S. into a glorified Third World nation, where we have a tiny upper class and a huge, sprawling lower class. It’s not as farfetched as it sounds.
Consider: Besides sending jobs overseas and replacing people with automated services and robots, corporations are laying off blue and white collar workers, shifting to part-time employees, eliminating pensions, rolling back holiday, vacation and sick pay, raising premiums on health care, and forcing employees to sign loyalty oaths. Workers are treated like disposable commodities. Had labor relations experts predicted such a thing in 1957, they would’ve been laughed out of the profession.
Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich argues that the 30-year erosion of the middle-class and the onset of the Great Recession are inextricably connected. Because the success of the economy is dependent on the health (“buying power”) of the middle-class, when the middle can’t afford to purchase goods and services, the economy tanks. Simple as that. Therefore, maintaining a healthy middle isn’t a form of generosity; it’s a form of self-preservation.
The rich can’t do it by themselves. In 1970, the top 1-percent earned 9-percent of all income. By the time the 2008 recession rolled around, the top 1-percent were earning nearly 24-percent. But even though Wall Street is flourishing and the rich are getting richer, they can’t be relied upon to fuel the economy. According to Reich, the very rich simply don’t spend enough money. That’s where the American middle comes in.
Historically, the middle-class has been extraordinarily dependable shoppers. They buy everything. The middle-class buys huge amounts of regular, everyday goods and services, and because these everyday goods and services are what keep the economy lubricated, society prospers. Buying a yacht doesn’t help that much. Also, the rich tend to invest much of their money, which, while sweetening their bank accounts and propping up the stock market, does little to sustain the “real” economy.
Assaulting American labor is analogous to chopping down an apple orchard. Although cutting down the trees makes picking the apples infinitely easier (and, if you’re a fruit vendor, more profitable), it also deprives the orchard of a future. But, come to think of it, no one ever accused Wall Street of caring that much about the future.
Protest Against Gentrification Dismissed as Prank
On Christmas Day, merchants and restaurateurs in the Wealthy and Cherry Street neighborhoods received messages. They were not Yuletide greetings, but declarations of class warfare. Painted on storefront windows, a garage at an ICCF townhouse, and on bricks thrown through windows, the protest was clearly about gentrification and a group of people being pushed out of their own neighborhood by business development.
The Green Well Gastro Pub, the Richard App Gallery, The Sparrows, The Meanwhile Bar, and The Winchester Restaurant were all targets of the protesters.
According to a report filed with The Rapidian, messages on bricks and painted on windows included the Anarchist symbol (an A in a circle); “Fuck You!”; “Yuppie Scum Yer Time Has Come,” a drawing of a capitalist pig, “Get Out,” “Urban Renewal = Classist + Racist,” “Gentrify This!” and “This is Not Your Neighborhood.” One brick was decorated with dollar signs.
The Rapidian commentary produced speculation that the damage had been done by kids, echoing the fact that in the site’s article, Winchester owner Paul Lee stated flatly, “I don’t feel that this is obviously anyone that is really from the neighborhood.”
Lee amplified his statement in the second of two articles published by The Grand Rapids Press on the MLive site December 25 and in the paper on December 26. In that article, Lee is quoted as stating: “This is the mark of probably a suburban kid who had too much time and who doesn’t understand what’s really going on in this neighborhood.”
Several other business owners, such as co-owner Tami VandenBerg from The Meanwhile Bar, started reiterating Lee’s statements. VandenBerg told the Press that she thought it was “disgruntled kids” or “college kids” who had painted the graffiti and thrown the bricks.
But by December 27, Lee’s story about the culprits had changed again. Interviewed by WOOD-TV, he did not mention his “suburban kids” theory. Lee called some of the statements painted on his business (especially “This is not your neighborhood”) “ignorant” because he and his wife live above their restaurant. After the WOOD-TV reporter summarized that neighbors and business owners worked hand-in-hand and “have reclaimed this neighborhood,” the reporter quoted Lee as saying that he knew the protesters were not people from the neighborhood “because most drug dealers don’t use words like ‘gentrification.’”
None of these speculations about the motive of the protesters appeared in the first article by the Press, published on MLive on Christmas Day. That article was shorter and seemed more to the point, reporting that the attacks were “vandalism warning the businesses that were seen as intruders in their respective neighborhoods.”
Although the business owners’ feelings about vandalism to their property is understandable, it should be noted that the story is evolving to frame the event as a kind of high school prank instead of considering it as a possible response to the gentrification of the neighborhoods in question.
GRIID has reported on various aspects of gentrification, including a report about a community forum last spring to discuss the problem in the Heartside area and a story in the Press about the “revitalization” of Wealthy Street.
The Press articles and the WOOD-TV report ignored what can be considered the inevitable downside of business development:
• Longtime residents and even some business owners have been forced out of the area by higher rents.
•As property taxes in the neighborhoods go up, some residents will lose their homes.
•Minorities who have been in the neighborhood for years are feeling pressured by the predominantly White influx of new business owners and residents.
When one looks at the messages left on Christmas Day, it appears that they point to this feeling of alienation. They also speak to the idea that gentrification inevitably brings about changes that are detrimental to the poor. They present the concept that urban renewal can carry a racist element with it. They underscore that some people in these neighborhoods might feel their lives are being dismantled for the profits of a few business owners.
Paul Lee’s statements, along with some of those posted at The Rapidian, seem to be a denial that this element to the changes in the neighborhood even exists. Conferences such as the one held by the Grand Rapids Community Foundation and meetings for further development, such as the year-round “farmers’ market” complex, are not as inclusive as they could be in giving long-time residents a venue to voice their concerns and assert their rights in this changing environment,
People left out of any dialogue will find a way to make themselves heard. It’s an unsettling thought to those who are putting their money and development interests into Cherry and Wealthy Streets. But rather than dismissing it or denying it, addressing it in constructive ways could lead to a better dialogue than bricks.
The Right to the City movement based in New York City has tackled issues around urban development and gentrification for several years now. They have numerous resources on their webpage with links to other resources being used around the country that may be useful for any discussion that might take place in Grand Rapids.
Obama’s Afghanistan Review
(This article by Phyllis Bennis and Kevin Martin is re-posted from ZNet.)
Apparently nothing can happen in the U.S. war in Afghanistan that doesn’t mean good news. If violence rises, it’s because “we’re taking the fight to the enemy.” The Pentagon must be taking a lot of fighting to whoever they’re calling the enemy – this year alone the war has killed over 2500 Afghan civilians, and almost 500 U.S. troops and more than 200 other NATO forces have died too. Of course in those isolated areas where violence may have dropped, it’s because “our strategy is winning.”
President Obama’s most recent Afghanistan review process resulted – surprise! – in the announcement that the U.S./NATO occupation will continue at least until 2014. Another four years of war, death, and devastation for the people of Afghanistan, as well as for the young U.S. soldiers drafted by poverty and lack of opportunity and sent to kill and die there in escalating numbers.
That earlier promise of July 2011 as the pull-out date? That one was always at least partially a sham – designed to pacify Obama’s powerfully anti-war base. The language even when first announced was a carefully ambiguous version that sounded like “July 2011 will start a process to determine whether conditions might allow preparation for beginning consideration of when the partial transfer of some control to Afghan forces might allow for a partial withdrawal of a few U.S. troops…”
As is recognized by the 60% of people in the U.S. who understand that the war in Afghanistan is “not worth fighting,” this is a war we cannot win and cannot afford. There is no military solution – we’ve heard that for years now, from the very leaders orchestrating the war, in the Pentagon, in Congress, in the White House. And yet, the military battle goes on, despite its inevitable failure.
And the cost continues to rise, exacting a huge price from U.S. taxpayers. The 2010 military budget plus the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq totaled over one TRILLION dollars – an amount so huge we can’t even comprehend it. Here’s one slightly smaller, that maybe we can grasp. Just the cost of President Obama’s escalation this last year, those additional 30,000 troops, was over $33 billion. That money could instead have been used to create 600,000 new green middle-class jobs here at home – and still had $3 billion left over to help with the rebuilding of post-occupation Afghanistan. Wouldn’t those 60% of Americans who think the war is not worth fighting have preferred to use the money for jobs instead of war?
President Obama told us the military is succeeding in its mission to “disrupt and dismantle, defeat and destroy” al Qaeda. And yet the CIA and other intelligence agencies acknowledge there are somewhere between 50 and 100 al Qaeda operatives even in Afghanistan. So we’ve sent 100,000 troops to wage war against the insurgents in Afghanistan who aren’t al Qaeda. Do they really believe that al Qaeda-style terrorism really requires large swathes of territory? They’re not training up battalions of soldiers who need to practice. All they really need are a few garage-sized labs and an Internet café with a fast connection.
As is true in any guerrilla war, the insurgents will fade before massed conventional forces, only to reappear when those forces move on. “Clearing” an area of the Taliban or other Afghan opposition forces is relatively easy; “holding” the area, not so much. And “building” – that’s pretty much off the agenda altogether. Why? It has a lot to do with the Afghan government, as well as the Afghan National Army and National Police. We hear a lot about how we’re making improvements in their recruitment and training, how they’re gaining skills and capacity every day. That’s probably all true. (Recruitment is fairly easy in a country with such pervasive unemployment.)
But it’s mostly irrelevant too. The problem isn’t training, it isn’t even the widespread lack of literacy. Many Taliban, Haqqani, and other fighters are largely illiterate also, and have no access to sophisticated training. It’s not about training, it’s about loyalty. And there’s no reason in the world to believe that a majority of Afghans, even those temporarily accepting pay in military or civil service, are going to develop real loyalty to a U.S.-imposed, western-style “strong central government” when there is nothing anywhere in Afghan culture that has created strong central governments or primarily national identity. That would be the case even with a legitimate, relatively honest administration in Kabul – let alone Hamid Karzai’s government that remains so thoroughly mired in fraud and corruption linked to the billions of U.S. tax dollars funneling in and out of Afghanistan.
Ironically, while President Obama’s review was all about the positive, the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Afghanistan was leaked just the day before. And boy, did they see things differently. The NIE is important – it reflects the consensus view of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies – the CIA, the DIA, the NSA and all the rest. And what they said was profoundly different from the rosy-eyed assessment of the White House and the Pentagon. Officials briefed on the NIE said it acknowledged that large swaths of Afghanistan are still at risk of falling to the Taliban. And that there is no chance for anything resembling success in Afghanistan without the kind of massive shift in Pakistan that would eliminate the Afghan Taliban’s current access to safe havens across the border.
And as of now, since the government in Pakistan we’re propping up with billions of dollars in military and economic aid has made quite clear that it – especially its powerful ISI intelligence agency – has no intention of ending support for the Afghan Taliban, the possibility of “success” seems to be just about zero.
It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. The Pakistani government is perfectly happy to accept U.S. aid and weapons and use them to go after the Pakistani Taliban – who could indeed threaten the stability, maybe even the survival of the current government in Islamabad. But they are just as clear that the Afghan Taliban, currently taking advantage of Pakistan’s welcome and support, is pretty much the opposite of a threat to the government in Islamabad. To the contrary, the Afghan Taliban are understood to represent Pakistan’s interests in Afghanistan – especially against those of Pakistan’s arch-rival India. And, like every regional government surrounding Afghanistan, Pakistan is looking out for its own interests, making sure it has a reliable surrogate in Kabul, especially whenever the U.S. troops begin to leave.
The ultimate military goal, we are told, is to make sure the Taliban doesn’t come back to power, because supposedly that will prevent al Qaeda from launching another 9/11. Let’s just take a “worst case scenario.” The U.S. invasion, war and occupation have devastated Afghanistan, and in a post-occupation scenario the Taliban will certainly be one of the forces contending for political power. Could they win?
Maybe – they did once before, in 1996, when a huge proportion of Afghans welcomed them because the Taliban promised to end the five years of bloody inter-warlord fighting that had devastated the country and nearly destroyed Kabul.
What if they did? The Taliban leadership are no fools – they know they lost their hold on power only because of their protection (for a while) of al Qaeda and its leaders. Chances are pretty good they might not want to risk that again.
And if they did? We know that war doesn’t work against terrorism – what does work, what has worked in every example where the U.S. has managed to find and capture top al Qaeda officials or information, has not been bombing but good intelligence, good police work, good cooperation with other governments and international institutions. That hasn’t changed. That’s why we need – and shouldn’t fear – negotiations with everybody at the table. Including the Taliban.
The U.S. war and occupation has not made Afghans safer, more secure, more prosperous – they still have one of the lowest life expectancies on earth. The war has not protected women – Afghan women still die in childbirth at rates second highest in the world. And children are not better off – UNICEF reports that Afghan babies are more likely to die before their first or fifth birthdays than any other children in the world.
War isn’t working. Sixty percent of Americans know it. The U.S. intelligence agencies know it too. And we’re thinking even President Obama knows it.
The president was quoted in Bob Woodward’s recent book Obama’s Wars as saying he would not lose his political base over Afghanistan, yet he is risking exactly that. Despite some significant political victories on gay rights and disarmament in the lame duck session of Congress that have him looking much better than after the mid-term election “shellacking” just seven weeks ago, Obama and his political advisers must know his chances of re-election will be very poor if the economy is still in the doldrums and we remain mired in a seemingly endless war in Afghanistan. His base, both on the war and peace side, and the economic justice side, simply won’t hustle for him as it did in 2008 (and without said hustle he’d still be the junior senator from Illinois).
Our main concern is not for the president’s re-election prospects, it’s to end this disastrous war as soon as possible. But it’s conceivable the two could be strategically linked. The president’s anti-war base must connect the urgency of getting out of Afghanistan and making serious cuts in the military budget, with the immediate need to reinvest in the working economy, job creation, and environmental restoration. That means building powerful alliances with the key movements rising in response to the economic crisis, and fighting now for immigrant, labor, community and civil rights.
If the president and his political team are as savvy as everyone thinks they are (or at least were in the 2008 campaign), they’d do well to get in front of that wave and run on a genuine peace and green prosperity platform. Imagine if that happened, and President Obama really did start paying attention to his anti-war base, and began carrying out the dramatic shift in policy necessary to insure a real withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, a genuine move to close Guantanamo, a final withdrawal of all remaining troops in Iraq, a serious level of pressure on Israel to end its occupation, as well as to launch a serious New New Deal to create green jobs and rebuild the economy… Then not only would the president likely coast to re-election, but the Afghan and U.S. people would be the real beneficiaries – instead of banks, war profiteers and Wall Street – and THAT election would really be one for the history books.
The Press’ Double Standard on Foreign Policy Speakers
This morning MLive posted an article announcing the 2011 foreign policy lecture series hosted by the World Affairs Council of Western Michigan. In fact, the Grand Rapids Press and MLive always publish the lecture series and write about each speaker as the series progresses.
The World Affairs Council (WAC) could be labeled as host speakers that tend to have a right of center view of the world and US foreign policy and this year’s line up is not that different.
The speakers include someone with the Council on Foreign Affairs, a retired Navy officer, a representative of the Red Cross and for a discussion about energy policy and national security WAC has someone from Marathon Oil and the American Petroleum Institute, which is essentially a front group for the oil industry.
In addition, there is a panel discussion on the global financial crisis featuring economics professors who all take a pro-capitalist position. Lastly, there is a speaker from the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, which has a board of directors that mostly represents corporate America and includes as an honorary member James Baker III of the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations.
However, if one were to look at speakers who have come to Grand Rapids in the past two years that have a critical view of US foreign policy the Grand Rapids Press and MLive not only don’t send a reporter to these events, they don’t announce them either. (with the exception of Kathy Kelly, where the announcement appeared in the Faith Calendar, even though it was not a religious-based event.)
In March of 2009, Institute for Policy Studies analyst Phyllis Bennis spoke on the Israeli assault on Gaza and the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan during a two-day conference.
In June of 2009, Kathy Kelly with Voices for Creative Non-violence spoke in Grand Rapids after returning from a trip to Pakistan and Afghanistan to speak with victims of the US drone bombings.
On March 18/19 the group Healing Children of Conflict hosted Doctor Izzeldin Abuelaish, a Palestinian doctor who spoke about the 2008/2009 Israeli assault on Gaza that killed his 2 daughters.
On March 25 of 2010, radical author and activists John Ross spoke in Grand Rapids about the role of the US in the war on drugs in Mexico while he was on a book tour throughout the US.
Lastly, on October 8, journalist Anand Gopal spoke in Grand Rapids. Gopal has been living in and reporting from Afghanistan for both the Christian Science Monitor and the Wall Street Journal.
These are not all of the left of center or anti-imperialist speakers to come to Grand Rapids in the past 2 years, but it gives you an indication of the double standard that the Press practices in terms of foreign policy speakers who come to West Michigan.
(This statement from Palestinians is re-posted from Common Dreams.)
We, the Palestinians of the Besieged Gaza Strip, on this day, two years on from Israel’s genocidal attack on our families, our houses, our roads, our factories and our schools, are saying enough inaction, enough discussion, enough waiting — the time is now to hold Israel to account for its ongoing crimes against us. On the 27th of December 2008, Israel began an indiscriminate bombardment of the Gaza Strip. The assault lasted 22 days, killing 1,417 Palestinians, 352 of them children, according to mainstream human rights organizations. For a staggering 528 hours, Israeli Occupation Forces let loose their US-supplied F15s, F16s, Merkava Tanks, internationally prohibited white phosphorous, and bombed and invaded the small Palestinian coastal enclave that is home to 1.5 million, of whom 800,000 are children and over 80 percent UN registered refugees. Around 5,300 remain permanently wounded.
This devastation exceeded in savagery all previous massacres suffered in Gaza, such as the 21 children killed in Jabalia in March 2008 or the 19 civilians killed sheltering in their house in the Beit Hanoun Massacre of 2006. The carnage even exceeded the attacks in November 1956 in which Israeli troops indiscriminately rounded up and killed 275 Palestinians in the southern town of Khan Younis and 111 more in Rafah.
Since the Gaza massacre of 2009, world citizens have undertaken the responsibility to pressure Israel to comply with international law, through a proven strategy of boycott, divestment and sanctions. As in the global BDS movement that was so effective in ending the apartheid South African regime, we urge people of conscience to join the BDS call made by over 170 Palestinian organizations in 2005. As in South Africa the imbalance of power and representation in this struggle can be counterbalanced by a powerful international solidarity movement with BDS at the forefront, holding Israeli policy makers to account, something the international governing community has repeatedly failed to do. Similarly, creative civilian efforts such as the Free Gaza boats that broke the siege five times, the Gaza Freedom March, the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, and the many land convoys must never stop their siege-breaking, highlighting the inhumanity of keeping 1.5 million Gazans in an open-air prison. Two years have now passed since Israel’s gravest of genocidal acts that should have left people in no doubt of the brutal extent of Israel’s plans for the Palestinians. The murderous navy assault on international activists aboard the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in the Mediterranean Sea magnified to the world the cheapness Israel has assigned to Palestinian llife for so long. The world knows now, yet two years on nothing has changed for Palestinians. The Goldstone Report came and went: despite its listing count after count of international law contraventions, Israeli “war crimes” and “possible crimes against humanity,” the European Union, the United Nations, the Red Cross, and all major Human Rights Organizations have called for an end to the illegal, medieval siege, it carries on unabated. On 11th November 2010 UNRWA head John Ging said, “There’s been no material change for the people on the ground here in terms of their status, the aid dependency, the absence of any recovery or reconstruction, no economy…The easing, as it was described, has been nothing more than a political easing of the pressure on Israel and Egypt.” On the 2nd of December, 22 international organizations including Amnesty, Oxfam, Save the Children, Christian Aid, and Medical Aid for Palestinians produced the report ‘Dashed Hopes, Continuation of the Gaza Blockade’ calling for international action to force Israel to unconditionally lift the blockade, saying the Palestinians of Gaza under Israeli siege continue to live in the same devastating conditions. Only a week ago Human Rights Watch published a comprehensive report “Separate and Unequal” that denounced Israeli policies as Apartheid, echoing similar sentiments by South African anti-apartheid activists.
We Palestinians of Gaza want to live at liberty to meet Palestinian friends or family from Tulkarem, Jerusalem or Nazareth; we want to have the right to travel and move freely. We want to live without fear of another bombing campaign that leaves hundreds of our children dead and many more injured or with cancers from the contamination of Israel’s white phosphorous and chemical warfare. We want to live without the humiliations at Israeli checkpoints or the indignity of not providing for our families because of the unemployment brought about by the economic control and the illegal siege. We are calling for an end to the racism that underpins all this oppression.
We ask: when will the world’s countries act according to the basic premise that people should be treated equally, regardless of their origin, ethnicity or colour — is it so far-fetched that a Palestinian child deserves the same human rights as any other human being? Will you be able to look back and say you stood on the right side of history or will you have sided with the oppressor?
We, therefore, call on the international community to take up its responsibility to protect the Palestinian people from Israel’s heinous aggression, immediately ending the siege with full compensation for the destruction of life and infrastructure visited upon us by this explicit policy of collective punishment. Nothing whatsoever justifies the intentional policies of savagery, including the severing of access to the water and electricity supply to 1.5 million people. The international conspiracy of silence towards the genocidal war taking place against the more than 1.5 million civilians in Gaza indicates complicity in these war crimes.
We also call upon all Palestine solidarity groups and all international civil society organizations to demand:
– An end to the siege that has been imposed on the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a result of their exercise of democratic choice.
– The protection of civilian lives and property, as stipulated in International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law such as The Fourth Geneva Convention.
– The immediate release of all political prisoners. - That Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip be immediately provided with financial and material support to cope with the immense hardship that they are experiencing
– An end to occupation, Apartheid and other war crimes.
– Immediate reparations and compensation for all destruction carried out by the Israeli Occupation Forces in the Gaza Strip.
Boycott, Divest and Sanction. Join the many international trade unions, universities, supermarkets and artists and writers who refuse to entertain Apartheid Israel. Speak out for Palestine, for Gaza, and crucially ACT. The time is now.
Besieged Gaza, Palestine
Dismissing race and class in Digital Divide story
MLive posted a story by a Grand Rapids Press reporter on the digital divide for students in Grand Rapids. The article claims that one third of Americans still do not have access to the Internet from home, which effects both urban and rural populations.
The digital divide is a serious problem in the US and in West Michigan, but instead of exploring what that really means the Press reporter decides to just speak with a student, a parent and two local library staff. All of those interviewed are addressing either their use of computers at public libraries or the increased amount of research students must do as part of their class work, even though the headline clearly puts the emphasis on the negative consequences of the digital divide. (Grand Rapids students caught in the digital divide as more school assignments include online aspect)
Besides some Census Bureau data, the MLive story never explores what the digital divide really means for Grand Rapids students. There is no investigation into the testing skills of students with easy access to the Internet compared to those with limited access. There is no exploration on the difference with Internet access along class and income lines or along racial lines, which seem to be obvious and important routes to take in such a story.
The first major government funded study on the digital divide was done a decade ago by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The report found that there were major sectors in both urban and rural areas that have limited or no access to the Internet. Since then more Americans now have access, but the data shows that it disproportionately effects low income and minority populations.
The Pew Research Center just conducted a survey of Internet use in the US by income levels and found there was a disparity in use between households that make more than $75,000 and those that make less than $75,000. However, the household income level seems to be a bit misleading and there would no doubt be an even greater disparity if one looked at households of $25,000 or less.
Just having access does not always mean the digital divide is decreased, since the speed and quality of the broadband can also impact Internet use. A new report by the FCC says that 68% of the 133 million broadband users in the US have way too slow of a connection to even be legitimately considered broadband.
The Pew Hispanic Center published findings in July of this year about the digital divide when comparing US born to foreign-born children now living in the US. This is the most recent study that looks at the digital divide along racial lines and similar investigation could be done for Grand Rapids Public School students, considering that it is a majority Black student population and a growing Latino student population. An excellent resource for exploring the digital divide and online use for school age students is the book The Young and the Digital, by S. Craig Watkins.
The Largest Prison Strike In American History Goes Ignored By US Media
(This article is re-posted from InfoShop.)
Today marks the end of a seven-day strike where tens of thousands of inmates in Georgia refused to work or leave their cells until their demands had been met. The odd thing is, that until today, no one had ever heard about this strike. Inmates in ten Georgia prisons, Baldwin, Hancock, Hays, Macon, Smith and Telfair State Prisons, to name a few, went on strike last Thursday to protest their treatment and demand their human rights.
Today marks the end of a seven-day strike where tens of thousands of inmates in Georgia refused to work or leave their cells until their demands had been met. The odd thing is, that until today, no one had ever heard about this strike.
Inmates in ten Georgia prisons, Baldwin, Hancock, Hays, Macon, Smith and Telfair State Prisons, to name a few, went on strike last Thursday to protest their treatment and demand their human rights.
According to an article by Facing South, Department of Corrections have been nervous about deteriorating conditions in Georgia’s prisons since early 2010. Wardens started triple bunking prisoners in response to budget cuts – squeezing three prisoners into cells intended for one. Prison officials have kept a watchful eye out for prisoners to meaning riot, for prisoners’ rights lawyers to litigate, or both.
Poor conditions and substandard medical care are also on the inmates’ list of demands. However, the jailed’s main gripe seems to center on landing recognition as workers entitled to fair pay.
As it goes, prisoners in Georgia are forced to work without pay for their labor – seemingly a violation of the 13th Amendment, which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude.
For months the prisoners had apparently used cell phones to get in touch with inmates from other prisons, organizing a non-violent strike. The outcome began the morning of Dec. 9 – by Dec. 13 the GDC issued a statement that four prisons were completely on strike.
An interview with one of the strike leaders revealed that every group of inmates in the prison had been working together. “They want to break up the unity we have here,” said an anonymous strike leader in an interview with the Black Agenda Report. “We have the Crips and the Bloods, we have the Muslims, we have the head Mexicans, and we have the Aryans all with a peaceful understanding, all on common ground.”
The largest prison strike in American history seems like a topic ripe for the press, however there was no mention of it anywhere in mainstream media. Smaller outlets like Black Agenda Report and Facing South (Institute for Southern Studies) have been covering the strike since day one.
Perhaps there was a larger hand at play – one that did not want the deplorable conditions of the Georgia prison system to surface. If Wikileaks has taught us anything, it is that the revolution will be televised.
The prisoners demands:
* A LIVING WAGE FOR WORK: In violation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude, the DOC demands prisoners work for free.
* EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES: For the great majority of prisoners, the DOC denies all opportunities for education beyond the GED, despite the benefit to both prisoners and society.
* DECENT HEALTH CARE: In violation of the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments, the DOC denies adequate medical care to prisoners, charges excessive fees for the most minimal care and is responsible for extraordinary pain and suffering.
* AN END TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS: In further violation of the 8th Amendment, the DOC is responsible for cruel prisoner punishments for minor infractions of rules.
* DECENT LIVING CONDITIONS: Georgia prisoners are confined in over-crowded, substandard conditions, with little heat in winter and oppressive heat in summer.
* NUTRITIONAL MEALS: Vegetables and fruit are in short supply in DOC facilities while starches and fatty foods are plentiful.
* VOCATIONAL AND SELF-IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES: The DOC has stripped its facilities of all opportunities for skills training, self-improvement and proper exercise.
* ACCESS TO FAMILIES: The DOC has disconnected thousands of prisoners from their families by imposing excessive telephone charges and innumerable barriers to visitation.
* JUST PAROLE DECISIONS: The Parole Board capriciously and regularly denies parole to the majority of prisoners despite evidence of eligibility.
Bradley Manning and GI Resistance to US War Crimes
(This interview is reposted from Dissident Voice.)
Jamail is the author of two recent books: “Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From An Unembedded Journalist” (2008) and “The Will To Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse To Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan” (2009). He also contributed Chapter 6, “Killing the Intellectual Class,” for the book Cultural Cleansing in Iraq: Why Museums Were Looted, Libraries Burned and Academics Murdered (2010). Learn more at http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com
Angola 3 News: On April 4, 2010, WikiLeaks.org released a classified 2007 video of a US Apache helicopter in Iraq, firing on civilians and killing 11, including Reuters’ photojournalist, Namir Noor-Eldeen, and his driver, 40 year old Saeed Chmagh. No charges have been filed against the US soldiers involved.
In sharp contrast, a 22-year-old US Army intelligence analyst named Bradley Manning has been accused of leaking the classified video. Arrested in May and facing up to 52 years in prison for a range of charges, Manning is now being held under what lawyer/journalist, Glenn Greenwald, has termed “inhumane conditions.”
Manning’s support website declares that “exposing war crimes is not a crime.” Indeed, the Nuremberg Laws, established after the horrors of WWII, declare that soldiers have a legal obligation to resist criminal wars. Let’s please take a closer look at this issue of US war crimes. What do you think are the strongest arguments that have been made for why US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are criminal?
Dahr Jamail: To be clear, while I’ve covered Iraq extensively, I’ve not covered Afghanistan. Thus, I’ll keep all my answers in the context of my expertise, that being Iraq.
That said, the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq could not have more clearly violated international law. Even former Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, said in September 2004 that the Iraq war was illegal and breached the UN Charter.
An illegal war is thus the mother of all war crimes, for from that stem all the rest. What I’ve seen in Iraq has been a parade of war crimes committed by the US military: rampant torture, collective punishment (Fallujah is an example), deliberate firing on medical workers, deliberate killing of civilians for “sport,” and countless others.
Then, there is the fact that both occupations are so clearly about control of dwindling resources and their transport routes, that the excuses given for them by the US government (both Bush and Obama) are both laughable and insulting to anyone capable of a modicum of critical thought.
A3N: How do you rate the corporate media’s coverage of the Bradley Manning story?
DJ: It’s been a farce. A classic case of “shoot the messenger.” When someone becomes a soldier, they swear an oath to support and defend the US constitution by following “lawful” orders. Thus, they are legally obliged by their own oath to not follow unlawful orders. What Manning did by leaking this critical information has been to uphold his oath as a soldier in the most patriotic way. Now compare that with how he has been raked over the coals by most of the so-called mainstream media.
A3N: How do they address the argument that “exposing war crimes is not a crime?”
DJ: Usually they don’t, because the corporate media, and the government for that matter, avoid the words “war crime” as though they are a plague. Thus, they avoid the issue at all cost.
A3N: In your opinion, how do the corporate media present the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan to the US public?
DJ: With Iraq, the occupation is presented as though it was a mistake, as though the great benevolent US Empire was mistakenly mislead into the war. But since “we” are there, it is good that at least Saddam Hussein has been removed, and now, of course, the US has only done the best it can in a tough situation.
With Afghanistan, the occupation is presented to the public as the ongoing frontline battle against “terrorism,” while, in reality, they should call Afghanistan “pipeline-istan” because it’s all about securing the access corridors for natural gas and oil pipelines from the Black Sea, through Afghanistan (the 4 main US bases there are located along the exact pipeline route) to the coast of Pakistan.
A3N: How does the corporate media narrative contrast with what you have seen first-hand in Iraq?
DJ: The difference is night and day. The whitewashing and outright lying by the corporate media is offensive to me. It is repulsive, in fact, when compared to what the reality on the ground is in Iraq. The brutality of the US military there against the civilian population would shock people. More than 1 million Iraqis have been slaughtered because of the US occupation. As you read this you can know that one in every ten Iraqis remains displaced from their homes. Can you imagine that? The US policy in Iraq has been so destructive, that one out of every ten Iraqis is currently displaced from their home, now at more than 7 years into the occupation?
A3N: Returning now to the issue of soldier resistance, what are the various reasons that anti-war soldiers give as motivation for their opposition to the occupations?
DJ: Mostly from what the soldiers see once they arrive in the occupation: the buckets of money being made by the contractors, the lack of goals for the occupation beyond generating huge amounts of profit for war contractors, and that the reasons given for the invasion/occupation were entirely false. So most seem to become anti-war when they see that they’ve been lied to, used, betrayed, and that they are putting their lives on the line so that war contractors can get richer.
A3N: What are some of the ways that anti-war soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have resisted?
DJ: Myriad ways. The most common, and least dramatic, is going AWOL. More than 60,000 soldiers have now taken that route since 11 September 2001. So, often, folks will go do a deployment, come back for a break, then simply not show up when it’s time for their unit to redeploy.
Some of the more interesting means of resistance I’ve found entailed doing what soldiers refer to as “search and avoid” missions. One soldier told me how they would go out to the end of their patrol route in their Humvees, find a big field, and park. They’d call in to base every hour to check in and say, “We’re fine, we’re still searching this field for weapons caches.” And they would sit there doing nothing until the time was up for their patrol, and they’d return to base. I met more and more soldiers who shared similar stories, from all over Iraq, during different times of the occupation. That’s when I realized how low morale was and how widespread different kinds of resistance had become.
Other soldiers found out how to manipulate their locator beacon on the GPS unit in the Humvees, so they’d sit and have tea with Iraqis, while someone moved their beacon around so their base thought they were patrolling.
A3N: How has US military leadership responded to this resistance?
DJ: They don’t know about much of it when it’s happening. Although there have been times when a unit has been caught doing something like the aforementioned, and they’ve broken up the unit, but that has been quite rare overall.
With AWOL troops, the military doesn’t have the manpower to send their MPs after them, so they let them go, wait for them to get a traffic ticket, for example, then the cops hand them over to the MPs who throw the AWOL soldier in the brig to await a court-martial. Then, often, the soldier is told he/she can go back to Iraq/Afghanistan, or they will be court-martialed.
A3N: In your book The Will To Resist, you document many different cases of soldiers that faced criminal charges for their opposition to US wars. We discussed Bradley Manning’s case earlier in this interview, but can you please tell us about any other recent, ongoing cases that have begun since the publication of your book in 2009? How can our readers best support these soldiers?
DJ: Most of those I followed that took place after my book was published have been completed, time served by the soldiers, and then their release into freedom from the military. Two cases of this type really stand out: Victor Agosto and Travis Bishop. Both of these men stood up and refused to be deployed, were court-martialed, served their time, and are now free.
There will be more to come as these occupations persist. A group to follow who regularly supports these resisters is Courage To Resist. They are based in Oakland and are run by Jeff Paterson, himself a resister to the first Gulf War. They do a great job of tracking resisters and what folks can do to support them. Support includes donations, but also making phone calls, writing letters, and other forms of activism.
A3N: In the months leading up to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the anti-war movement in the US was relatively strong, but since the invasion began, the anti-war movement seems to have lost considerable momentum and strength. On a practical level, what do you think the US anti-war movement needs in order to be re-energized and finally end these wars?
DJ: At the risk of sounding like a cynic when I feel I’m making an honest assessment, I don’t feel there will be a mass organization of an anti-war movement. We already live in a police state. What is left of the anti-war movement is completely infiltrated, and is being torn apart by sectarianism and profiteering (the peace-industrial-complex).
In addition, I feel that the main reason for the failure of the anti-war movement is that most folks involved in it still believe they can work within the system to generate change, when the system is completely corrupted already. By “system,” I mean the federal government. That apparatus is broken beyond repair, it is completely corrupted, and needs to be dissolved. Thus, any movement that seeks to work within the parameters set by the system (such as weekend permitted demonstrations, thinking you can effectively pressure your representative, etc.) is doomed before it begins, because it is still playing by the rules set out by those in power. Rules guarantee never to jeopardize the loss of power by those who hold it.
Only truly radical actions, meant to subvert the system and shut it down to a point where business as usual is impossible until demands are met, are all that is left.
Anti-Muslim hysteria takes local toll
As the secular message of Christmas continues its descent into unbridled
consumerism, the hate-mongers of the religious right seem more occupied with keeping the prophet Muhammad out of America than keeping Christ in Christmas. Corporate media is rife with accounts of outrage over banned nativity scenes. And, the finger of blame is increasingly pointed at Muslims.
“The Christmas story is about a person born into a religious minority in a land occupied by oppressors who persecute,” says Mary Vaccaro, associate director for program design with Grand Rapids’ Catholic Information Center. The Center actively promotes dialogue with local Muslims. “The holy family is homeless, refugees. For us to perpetuate the true Christmas spirit is to treat all people, whatever their faith, the way we would like the holy family to be treated.”
This message is sadly lacking according to a December 20 story on Alternet .”Right-Wing Money-Fed Campaign Escalates Latent 9-11 Paranoia into Anti-Muslim Hysteria” explains how the religious right, ultra-Zionists, Tea Party propagandists and half-baked conspiracy theorists have successfully financed 
and promoted Islamaphobia as a means to their own ends. Tom Englehart writes in the article’s introduction, “In an atmosphere of swirling fears and hysteria amid declining living conditions, ‘explanations’ that at other times might have remained confined to tiny crews of conspiracy-mongers can suddenly gain a patina of plausibility and so traction. No wonder then that, as hard times hit, as the financial system seemed on the verge of collapse, as unemployment soared and a massive wave of home foreclosures swept into view, increasing numbers of Americans became prey to any wacky explanation for our troubles, none more so than the idea that Islam was somehow responsible, that mosques and Islamic centers meant for a sliver of a minority here were capable of imposing anything, no less a way of life on this country, or that Sharia law (of all things) might somehow worm its way into state legal systems, or that YouTube was a hotbed of terrorism worthy of suppression, or… well, you name it.”
Elsewhere in Indy News, Professor Juan Cole’s Dec. 21 post, “Hating Muslims in America,” states, “Rep. Peter King (R-NY), the incoming chair of the House committee on Homeland Security has announced that he will hold hearings into the ‘radicalization’ of American Muslims. This, despite the fact that the Muslim Americans are pillars of the US community–disproportionately well-educated and well integrated into the country, and even though a third of tips forestalling radical Muslim operations come from the community itself. And, despite the fact that most terrorism in the US is committed by white supremacists. King’s obscene gesture of Kristallnacht-by-hearing does not come out of the representative’s own eccentricities, but is part of an organized conspiracy to demonize and marginalize Muslim Americans and Arab Americans.”
Cole takes the government’s role in fueling anti-Islamic sentiment one very logical step further, “Since the wars are for resources in the resource-rich Muslim world, it is convenient to demonize Muslims across the board, including domestic ones.”
An August 2010 Pew Research Center poll of Americans found that the favorability rating of Muslims has dropped by 11 points since 2005. In the midst of this whipped up frenzy, arsonists are torching mosques. Christians are blocking construction of mosques in their towns and cities. And, in Oklahoma, voters overwhelmingly approved a ban on Sharia law, even though the prospect of Sharia replacing that state’s laws is laughable at best.
Has this Islamaphobia impacted our Muslim neighbors in the greater Grand Rapids area? Yes. “I know there is anti-Muslim sentiment,” Vaccaro says. “I see it in the media. And, my Muslim friends have anecdotes they have shared with me. I can’t speak for all Christians and church history sadly includes that there has been (persecution) there. We have reformed our teaching since ….and teach that it is wrong to discriminate against anyone because of their faith. To criticize another faith is not who we are.”
While preparing to write this post, the writer asked a Muslim friend, Wafa H., if she has noticed a worsening attitude towards Muslims locally. She is well educated, fluent, friendly and has a great sense of humor. She lived in the Grand Rapids area for many years before relocating to California for a year or so. She recently returned here to live and re-establish her small business.
Wafa returned my call from the urgent care waiting room. Stress has caused her physical collapse. Last summer, she moved to an apartment in Byron Center. There, every time she and her son came or left, they were called names, told to get out of the country and threatened with a rifle on several occasions. Wafa’s tires were slashed. While police responded on numerous occasions, they claimed not enough evidence existed to prosecute a hate crime.
Life in her new rental home is not much better. After living without electricity or locks on the doors for two months, Wafa withheld the rent. She shares , “My current landlord evicted me because he does not want to deal with me because I speak with a Middle Eastern accent . . . he threatened me, called me ‘bitch’ and ‘ whore’ and pushed the door on me. Now he is evicting me. Wherever you’re from (in the Middle East) if you don’t speak English (without an accent), people yell, scream and show me disrespect. Especially this year. I never had this before.”
Her son, who finally were allowed to join her in the U.S. after years of separation, is enrolled at GRCC. “He is shocked and depressed and does not know what to do. He needs a job but no one will hire him,” Wafa says. “We need to educate, educate, educate the public about Arabic culture. I was living here in peace years ago and now these people are against me. I am so tired.”
Educate, educate, educate. Though ignored by local media, people from different faiths here are working together to raise awareness of what Islam really teaches and how local Muslims really live. Despite early notification, local media failed to cover an event attended by more than 160 people last fall. Neither did they cover peaceful Muslim scholar Omid Safi when he spoke at Calvin College a few days later. Sane and peaceful Muslim voices are being raised across the country. But corporate media, goaded by right-wing fear mongers, ignores them, prefering to exploit the false idea that Islam is a faith of violence that is intent on destroying the “West.”
“It is American Muslims’ responsibility to reach out and explain their religion. The 99% need to explain how peaceful our faith is and how that 1% is misrepresenting the faith. The violent 1%, those are the ones the media grabs for the first story in the evening news,” says Dr. Mohammad Saleh, a local physician involved in organizing upcoming interfaith events about Islam. “The best thing for non-Muslim to show support is to reach out to their Muslim neighbors and co-workers . Meet with them, understand the faith, share in their traditions. We are really trying to speak up. My hope is to have more media coverage of our events so that people are aware. We would hope that people who don’t know the faith not to stereotype Muslims, to not apply what they see and hear in the news to every Muslim.”
Upcoming interfaith events about Islam
- Jan. 10 and 11, 7- 8:30 p.m. Will the Real Islam Please Stand Up? This two session course will present a basic overview of Islam and the Quran. Presenter: Ghazala Munir. Hosted by the Catholic Information Center, 2nd floor Cathedral Square Center, 360 S. Division.
- Feb 9, 7 – 9 p.m. Building Interfaith Friendships: The Dialogue Tour of the new mosque and conversation about Islam. Hosted by the Islamic Mosque and Religious Institute, 3333 East Paris SE, Grand Rapids.
FCC Adopts Corporate Internet Regulatory Rules
(This article is re-posted from OpenSecrets.)
The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday approved new rules that will regulate Internet access for consumers. Passed by FCC Commissioner Julius Genachowski and his Democratic colleagues, the rules stipulate that Internet providers cannot block or restrict the delivery of online services. But providers may have preferred clients in which a company can pay for faster Internet access for consumers.
Indeed, the debate over net neutrality has been raging over the past two years as entities on both sides have been lobbying heavily to influence policymakers. On one end, Internet providers generally pushed for the ability to charge businesses and consumers for faster Internet speeds, creating a seemingly tiered Internet system.
Conversely, consumer advocates wanted the FCC to keep the Internet universally available to all consumers and businesses, thereby protecting and entrenching net neutrality. After analyzing lobbying disclosure reports, the Center for Responsive Politics finds that communication companies have had a much larger presence than the consumer advocates lobbying policymakers.
The chart below shows how many entities within specific industries or special interest areas specifically mentioned lobbying on “net neutrality” during the past two years:
While federal lobbying disclosure forms make it impossible to tell exactly how much money these companies spent lobbying on net neutrality alone, the significant resource advantage communication companies have over consumer advocacy groups suggest an advantage in making their voices heard over competitors.
